Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Wow, just wow! I haven't paid attention to anything in the 9/11 "truther" world since early 2013 because by then to me the movement seemed to be dead anyway. I almost forgot about its existence until today when in my Facebook feed I came across Corbettreport's infamous 9/11-A Conspiracy Theory. So I just came here to ask you guys who have been paying attention to 9/11 news: Has ANY new "evidence" come forward in the past 3 years pointing to a conspiracy? If so comment below and if you are so kind to save me time please post a debunking to it, if one does such exist yet. Note: Do not post stuff that has been parroted(and debunked) for years by truthers! Show me some new stuff that I would not have found 3 years ago!

Hulsey said in the lecture that he is intentionally avoiding exposure to conspiracy-promoting literature.

I think he would much rather be "the guy who solved WTC 7's structural failure" instead of "that guy who thinks it was a demolition", AE911TRUTH be damned. I think he refuses to even say the word "demolition" or "implosion". He comes across to me like he really wants it to be a structural failure.

Ok, so I've watched Dr. Hulsey's entire presentation and nowhere in it does he make any claim that there's evidence that WTC7 was demolished. He simply claims that he wants to know the real reason it collapsed. He says that he's worked with an independent team to reconstruct Building 7 and its collapse. Then he goes on to say how they're model is different from NIST's model. I'm no expert in this so can anybody here corraborate or refute these claims please? He then brings up the claim that WTC7 experienced freefall and that NIST hasn't come up with an explanation for it.

I went through my own collection of debunking material and found an answer to Dr. Husley's question:

Quote:

From youtube User RKOwens4's channel, originally posted on February 24,2009:
(comments by RKOwens4 in bold)

"Still waiting for you to debunk or explain NIST's admitted 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration."

If you had read the NIST﻿ report on WTC7, you would see that the 2.25 seconds of free-fall is actually predicted by the collapse simulation. From the instant of collapse initiation, it takes 3 seconds for the collapse to spread from the 7th floor all the way to the roof. Then it takes another 8 seconds for the collapse to progress throughout the entire core. Once the core is completely gone, there's no lateral support for the perimeter columns. Also, the collapsing core pulls in on the floor beams, which pulls in on the perimeter columns. The collapse simulation predicted a bowing inward of the perimeter columns between the 8th and 14th floor (7 floors) when the shell began to collapse.Once they bowed﻿ inward enough, they just snapped at both ends and the 14th floor was free to fall onto the 8th floor with no resistance. Once the top hit other debris, it began slowing down again. So, don't say NIST doesn't know how to explain it, or that it can't be explained through collapse by fire. It already HAS been explained.

Also, we can do a simply calculation to see if the collapse prediction matches with the observation. The loss of perimeter columns between the 8th and 14th floors means a 7 floor drop. Each office floor was 12.5 feet in height (3.8 meters). 3.8x7=(1/2)9.8t^2 calculates out to a free-fall time of 2.33 seconds. This prediction is nearly identical to what it observed, further verifying the computer simulation and the NIST report. If free-fall is an indicator of controlled demolition, then why did the building not fall at free-fall for 11 seconds, then fall for free-fall for 2.25 seconds, then not at free-fall for﻿ another several seconds? 15.75 seconds out of the 18 second collapse WASN'T at free-fall.

Hulsey said in the lecture that he is intentionally avoiding exposure to conspiracy-promoting literature.

I think he would much rather be "the guy who solved WTC 7's structural failure" instead of "that guy who thinks it was a demolition", AE911TRUTH be damned. I think he refuses to even say the word "demolition" or "implosion". He comes across to me like he really wants it to be a structural failure.

You fall for lies from 9/11 truth; may not make you a valid exert on identifying idiots in 9/11 truth like Hulsey.
But you might be right, Hulsey could be playing 9/11 truth to get funding.

However...

Quote:

WTC 7 Evaluation is a two-year study by Dr. J Leroy Hulsey, Chair of UAF's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. It is being crowd-funded through the nonprofit organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Follow the money, it is woo money for a woo study.

You failed to figure out Hulsey is another failed 9/11 truth nut.

Nothing Hulsey is doing is new; you missed the other studies done by reality based engineers and scientist, and you fell for lie from 9/11 truth.

NIST has a probable (9/11 truth has no clue what probable means, an never off a probable cause backed with evidence) collapse sequence caused by fire. What will Hulsey say caused the collapse? Magical silent explosives, or magical nano-thermite which leaves no evidence?

Hulsey's BS is not new, it is the same old nonsense. Hulsey waves his hands and says NIST is wrong. This is not new, all 9/11 truth nut experts wave their hands and say NIST is wrong, and never provide evidence for CD. Never will. A movement that depends on gullible followers, 9/11 truth.

Has ANY new "evidence" come forward in the past 3 years pointing to a conspiracy?

I have to say no because after all of these years, there is still no 9/11 conspiracy evidence.

No one in their right mind would have dared used explosives and/or thermite because in doing so, would have left behind traceable evidence everywhere.
Two primary examples were the downing of Pan Am 103 and the 1993 WTC 1 bombing. In both cases, traceable evidence was left behind that pointed fingers at the culprits. Did I mention evidence left behind during the Oklahoma bombing?

Furthermore, it would have been impossible to properly and secretly prepare the WTC buildings for demolition. You can't just place explosives or thermite in a steel frame building and expect the building to collapse without proper preparation. That fact was evident in 1993 where a huge bomb failed to drop WTC 1 and in another case where thermite initially failed to collapse a heavily damaged steel frame roof that had been repeatedly bombed and shelled during World War II.

Amazingly, the steel frame roof was already in danger of collapse before the first failed attempt to collapse the roof with thermite and yet, truthers try to lead us to believe that thermite and/or explosives were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Well, if he's stated that NIST didn't explain it, but in fact NIST did explain it, then clearly there is something rather important that he hasn't thought of. He appears to be employing a classic truther tactic of claiming that something hasn't been explained; the next step will be to admit that the explanation exists but that he personally disagrees with it, and then pretend he wasn't lying when he made the original false claim.

To the OP, Hulsey's study appears to be about the only new thing the TM has produced in the last three years, and his reports so far have (a) fallen well short of the volume of material that was promised, (b) employed the appallingly bad logical device of starting from the premise that the NIST collapse model is inaccurate to reach the conclusion that the collapse cannot have been due to fire, and (c) are being run by someone who claims to be a "forensic structural engineer" despite having no public record of forensic investigation prior to the start of the study. IOW, same ****, different truther. And apart from that, nothing new to see here.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

__________________...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.